Since 100,000 people are shot in the US every year - with 30,000 deaths, there seems to be some reason to question the 2nd amendment 'right.'
In Switzerland they don't have the 'right.' If they can show a need to have a gun, they can get one. They have to show up every 6 months to again show that they have the same need - like being a cop or guarding something that might be a target for a theft. It's considered a privilege. They don't have the crime scenes we have. Might there be some reason for this? Israel has the same names and rules for owning a gun.
Oh yeah, the 2nd amendment is there in order to enable the local militia to have guns.
Text of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.
The Swiss (and Israeli)militias don't keep the guns at home. They are kept at some local depot where the army falls in. This has stopped suicides by the militia members (by not having the guns right at hand) by 40%. Apparently, being in the Country-mandated militia causes lots of suicides. The suicide idea comes and goes. But, having the gun available certainly makes it a lot easier to get it done.
I think if we want our children safe from the assaults, we should just buy them guns. A well armed population would be the result. We are all acting like children in this debate. So why not just go to Walmart and get whatever gun/ammo one wants and go work it out. The NRA just said (in their news conference) that they would like to have an armed guard at every school. I'm sure that the next shooter will find out who and where that guard is and just start there with his assault rifle and the 30 bullet clip.
It sure sounds like your 'facts' have covered your decision on what 'protection' is. I guess the NRA has to survive and they are just promoting the campaign that has worked for them in the past. Why change when everything is so good right now?
Well, the Columbine armed guard ran when the shooters started their event. The armed guard is another bit of safety symbolism. The armed guards should protect the banks. But, somehow they get robbed anyway. I don't think the armed guards at the sports stadium would be able to stop a shooter either. I think they are symbols rather than deterrents. Of course every incident is unique and I don't know how each one would happen. I just know that our latest shooter obtained those guns because his mother made them available by buying them and keeping them in the house. He could have used a knife. But, he wouldn't get nearly as many kids. The instrument is very efficient at killing. Does anyone need this kind of instrument to hunt?
I know we are trading sound bites as usual. I know that more people will be buying guns if they become afraid that some law will be passed to limit their access. The gun manufacturers are surely happy. I know it's nothing personal - just business, as usual. I don't think the NRA is helping the country stop bad guys with guns by arming good guys with guns. I think they are selling their product. They do lobby many politicians by threatening to oppose their re-elections. Are they doing this to help America or their bank account? Why do they need to lobby so much? Might they be another Grover Norquist? It seems that there is a lot of money lobbying these guys. Why are these Republicans such as easy mark? Maybe there is an ideology that makes it easier to get the desired results.
How about this? Since we keep comparing statistics about gun deaths and car deaths, why not mandate insurance for gun owners like insurance for car owners. They both cause accidents and deaths.
We don't have to collect the guns if there's a component involving money. You buy a gun and you pay a tax to cover the damage it can produce - just like a car. You can still drive a car without insurance.
But, eventually some cop will stop you for something. You've got to prove insurance along with providing a driver's license.
Private insurance companies would only insure someone who can show that they will be careful with the guns they own.
I take your point. Governments have certainly done plenty of killing - as does this one with the ongoing wars of today. It's still somewhat of a fantasy that the armed citizen would get into a shootout with the army or the police. I don't think that the Jews (armed or not) had much of a chance with Hitler. The ones who saw what was happening got out as soon as they could. I don't think getting a gun would have made any difference there. The same thing applies here. OK, I understand the protection from some meth freak who picks your house and climbs in the window. That is very bad luck and I suppose it would be handy to have a gun in that instance. I don't believe that it happens like it's imagined by all the gun owners. There is still the argument that keeping a loaded gun within one's reach also keeps it within reach of kids and mentally challenged persons. I don't have any statistics but I know that people are often shot by their own gun when a scuffle ensues. You gotta be ready to shoot it right away. That moment requires one to assess what else could be done to avoid killing anyone. If we were armed or not would not matter if the government got the Army to wipe out some group of people. They have kevlar suits. They have machine guns. They have lots of ammo. You might get a couple of soldiers with your semi-automatic before they got you. They could also bring in helicopters etc. There is no amount of guns that would make you a formidable enemy to our Armed Forces. They are the most powerful force on earth - so we think. I still think that having a gun is a liability - not a safety factor. But, I get what you are thinking about. It's a matter of watching FOX and getting scared by what they keep saying IMHO. Once you start watching and listening to that philosophy, I can see building the bomb shelter and stocking up on freeze dried food. The US still has those nukes that could be placed where everyone is armed and could cause the US Army some grief. The nukes could also be sent via drones. There are so many ways to fight an armed rebellion. I'm not sure whether the Afghanis have protected themselves that well with the Kalishnikovs. I guess we - the people - could storm an Army base and get some aircraft or tanks. Do we know how to fly them? Do we know about all the security codes to launch any weapons against our Army? If we get a dictator in this Country, and he does control the Army, I think it's time to get to Mexico or Canada, not buy a gun.
It's the people that the government has to fear. We can vote them out. If the government turns into a dictatorship, the dictator will make sure he has the military convinced to support him. I don't know how one becomes a dictator - but, you don't just become president and tell the army to wipe out all the people. I don't see the difference if the people are armed or not. It's apples fighting oranges. Maybe some army guys would defect and side with the people, maybe not. It's a fantasy. One can argue about all the details of this fantasy and how one would be so much more capable of defending his family from the army gone wild. It's just not very realistic, in the first place.
Comments
In Switzerland they don't have the 'right.' If they can show a need to have a gun, they can get one. They have to show up every 6 months to again show that they have the same need - like being a cop or guarding something that might be a target for a theft. It's considered a privilege. They don't have the crime scenes we have. Might there be some reason for this? Israel has the same names and rules for owning a gun.
Oh yeah, the 2nd amendment is there in order to enable the local militia to have guns.
Text of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.
The Swiss (and Israeli)militias don't keep the guns at home. They are kept at some local depot where the army falls in. This has stopped suicides by the militia members (by not having the guns right at hand) by 40%. Apparently, being in the Country-mandated militia causes lots of suicides. The suicide idea comes and goes. But, having the gun available certainly makes it a lot easier to get it done.
It sure sounds like your 'facts' have covered your decision on what 'protection' is. I guess the NRA has to survive and they are just promoting the campaign that has worked for them in the past. Why change when everything is so good right now?
I don't think the armed guards at the sports stadium would be able to stop a shooter either. I think they are symbols rather than deterrents. Of course every incident is unique and I don't know how each one would happen. I just know that our latest shooter obtained those guns because his mother made them available by buying them and keeping them in the house. He could have used a knife. But, he wouldn't get nearly as many kids. The instrument is very efficient at killing. Does anyone need this kind of instrument to hunt?
I know we are trading sound bites as usual. I know that more people will be buying guns if they become afraid that some law will be passed to limit their access. The gun manufacturers are surely happy. I know it's nothing personal - just business, as usual. I don't think the NRA is helping the country stop bad guys with guns by arming good guys with guns. I think they are selling their product. They do lobby many politicians by threatening to oppose their re-elections. Are they doing this to help America or their bank account? Why do they need to lobby so much? Might they be another Grover Norquist?
It seems that there is a lot of money lobbying these guys. Why are these Republicans such as easy mark? Maybe there is an ideology that makes it easier to get the desired results.
How about this? Since we keep comparing statistics about gun deaths and car deaths, why not mandate insurance for gun owners like insurance for car owners. They both cause accidents and deaths.
We don't have to collect the guns if there's a component involving money. You buy a gun and you pay a tax to cover the damage it can produce - just like a car. You can still drive a car without insurance.
But, eventually some cop will stop you for something. You've got to prove insurance along with providing a driver's license.
Private insurance companies would only insure someone who can show that they will be careful with the guns they own.
If we were armed or not would not matter if the government got the Army to wipe out some group of people. They have kevlar suits. They have machine guns. They have lots of ammo. You might get a couple of soldiers with your semi-automatic before they got you. They could also bring in helicopters etc. There is no amount of guns that would make you a formidable enemy to our Armed Forces. They are the most powerful force on earth - so we think. I still think that having a gun is a liability - not a safety factor. But, I get what you are thinking about. It's a matter of watching FOX and getting scared by what they keep saying IMHO. Once you start watching and listening to that philosophy, I can see building the bomb shelter and stocking up on freeze dried food. The US still has those nukes that could be placed where everyone is armed and could cause the US Army some grief. The nukes could also be sent via drones. There are so many ways to fight an armed rebellion. I'm not sure whether the Afghanis have protected themselves that well with the Kalishnikovs. I guess we - the people - could storm an Army base and get some aircraft or tanks. Do we know how to fly them? Do we know about all the security codes to launch any weapons against our Army? If we get a dictator in this Country, and he does control the Army, I think it's time to get to Mexico or Canada, not buy a gun.
Maybe some army guys would defect and side with the people, maybe not. It's a fantasy. One can argue about all the details of this fantasy and how one would be so much more capable of defending his family from the army gone wild. It's just not very realistic, in the first place.